Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-30-2020, 04:21 PM
Arroway's Avatar
Arroway Arroway is offline
Member
CAS SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a house
Studying for Done, bois!
College: UConn
Favorite beer: Barq's or Mug, or any local Root Beer with caffeine
Posts: 1,882
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by llcooljabe View Post
curious: what kind of E&O risks do agents/brokers have in this: e.g. the "you should have told me pandemics weren't covered" types of disputes.
Agree, probably not high from this scenario.

But if a marginal insurer were to fail, the broker may have some exposure for placing someone with an unstable company. Still probably not a high risk, but if they knew a carrier was on the brink of a downgrade, and COVID put them over the edge, there may be liability, or at least the idea of liability will be strong enough to file a claim. Duty to defend and all that...
__________________
All opinions are either my own, or made up for dramatic and/or comedic effect.

Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-30-2020, 04:34 PM
yoyo's Avatar
yoyo yoyo is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 24,889
Default

according to a Business Insurance headline, New York lawmakers have joined Ohio, Massachusetts and New Jersey in introducing a bill that would force insurers to retroactively cover business interruption claims due to COVID-19.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-30-2020, 05:33 PM
llcooljabe's Avatar
llcooljabe llcooljabe is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 23,733
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo View Post
according to a Business Insurance headline, New York lawmakers have joined Ohio, Massachusetts and New Jersey in introducing a bill that would force insurers to retroactively cover business interruption claims due to COVID-19.
We all (admitted NY companies) will pay for it, it seems:

Quote:
N.Y. introduces bill on pandemic-related business interruption claims

New York lawmakers have joined Ohio, Massachusetts and New Jersey in introducing a bill that would force insurers to retroactively cover business interruption claims due to COVID-19.

New York Assembly members Robert Carroll and Patricia Fahy on Friday introduced A. 10226 which would require insurers providing business interruption and loss of use coverage to cover “business interruption during a period of a declared state emergency due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.”

The New York bill would apply to policies in force by March 7 and issued to businesses with fewer than 100 full-time employees.

“Notwithstanding any provisions of law, rule or regulation to the contrary, every policy of insurance insuring against loss or damage to property, which includes the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption, shall be construed to include among the covered perils under that policy, coverage for business interruption during a period of a declared state of emergency due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic,” the text of A. 10226 states.

The bill would require insurers to indemnify the policyholder “subject to the limits under the policy, for any loss of business or business interruption for the duration of a period of a declared state emergency” due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the text of the bill adds.

Insurers that pay out business interruption claims under the proposed act can seek reimbursement from the New York Superintendent of Insurance, the text states.

This would be funded by a “special purpose apportionment” the New York Superintendent of Insurance would be authorized to collect from all insurers doing business in the state, under the proposed legislation.

Insurance industry groups have pushed back, claiming that the move to force insurers to provide retroactive business interruption coverage for pandemics could impact the financial stability of the sector.

Viruses, pandemics and contagious/infectious diseases such as COVID-19 are generally excluded from standard form commercial property policies. Policies also require direct physical loss to property for coverage to kick in, they say.
Retroactively requiring contractual changes for which no premium was collected is “a dangerous, unprecedented, and unconstitutional proposal that NAMIC emphatically opposes,” Erin Collins, vice president, state affairs at the Indianapolis-based National Association of Mutual Insurers, said in an email.

“Broad business communities will be ultimately harmed by these kinds of proposals in that they may prevent potential financial assistance from anticipated relief programs, and will have a deep chilling effect on the availability of insurance for the business community moving forward,” Ms. Collins said.

If policymakers force insurers to pay for losses that are excluded under existing insurance policies, the stability of the sector could be affected, a spokeswoman for the New York-based Insurance Information Institute said in written response.

“Insurers pay millions of dollars annually to business owners who are impacted by tornadoes, hurricanes and other disaster losses. We’re now coming into tornado and hurricane season. How are we going to pay for the losses from these disasters that are covered if we don’t have the financial ability?” she said in an email.

The New York bill has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Insurance. It follows the introduction of H.B. 589 in Ohio, S.D. 2888 in Massachusetts and A. 3844 in New Jersey.
__________________
www.GoodNewsNow.info
Propoganda
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-30-2020, 05:41 PM
Lucy's Avatar
Lucy Lucy is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 8,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo View Post
according to a Business Insurance headline, New York lawmakers have joined Ohio, Massachusetts and New Jersey in introducing a bill that would force insurers to retroactively cover business interruption claims due to COVID-19.
Ouch. I hope that doesn't bring down too much of the insurance industry.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-30-2020, 05:44 PM
Maphisto's Sidekick's Avatar
Maphisto's Sidekick Maphisto's Sidekick is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: South Park Genetics Lab
College: Ardnox
Favorite beer: The kind with alcohol
Posts: 3,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arroway View Post
I thought it was already renewed?

EDIT: Yes, it was: Tripra renewed early
Well, damn. I only saw the memo about conditional renewals going out.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-30-2020, 06:58 PM
yoyo's Avatar
yoyo yoyo is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 24,889
Default

the bill must become law first, we'll see
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-30-2020, 07:12 PM
Arthur Itas's Avatar
Arthur Itas Arthur Itas is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta
Studying for Prostate exam
College: Hard Knocks
Posts: 23,480
Default

I also doubt retroactive coverage changes will pass constitutional challenges.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-30-2020, 09:07 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 94,157
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Itas View Post
I also doubt retroactive coverage changes will pass constitutional challenges.
This is what I was thinking.
__________________
It's STUMP - meep on public finance, pensions, mortality, and more

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-31-2020, 08:51 AM
sticks1839 sticks1839 is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,697
Default

Anyone following the Keller (of French Laundry) restaurant lawsuit against Hartford Fire over this?



The article is quoted from the plaintiff side, but it sounds like his coverage included "prohibition due to order of civil authority". That would seem pretty cut and dried to me. Am I missing something?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-31-2020, 09:12 AM
act_123 act_123 is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,290
Default

If states do make insurers pay, will reinsurers then pay insurers? I can see a situation where reinsurers go unscathed even though insurers have to pay and bought reinsurance for cat risk and such.
__________________
ACAS 7 8 9
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.47951 seconds with 11 queries